Canadian Court Rules Gun Maker Smith & Wesson Can Be Liable for 2018 Shooting

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Aim1, Feb 13, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,889
  2. Pat Riot
    • Contributing Member

    Pat Riot Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2015
    Messages:
    3,918
    Location:
    Southern California
    Of course they did. Why wouldn’t they. It’s not about justice. It’s about an agenda. It’s about greed and money.
     
  3. entropy

    entropy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    12,926
    Location:
    G_d's Country, WI
    Perhaps S&W's legal team should motion for a change of venue.
     
  4. WestKentucky

    WestKentucky Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2014
    Messages:
    11,400
    Location:
    Middle Tn
    You forgot power. It’s always the intersection of money and power for a greedy person.
     
    danmc, NIGHTLORD40K and Pat Riot like this.
  5. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,886
    Location:
    WNY
    Do we have anything substantial to say about this?
     
    DoubleMag and NewHamshooter like this.
  6. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    9,466
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    A stolen gun.
    Do they think that smart gun tech cannot be disabled by someone willing to steal and kill?
    How about the hundreds of millions of guns pre-smart gun tech and the MAC-10s made by extremists and drug runners from scratch with dumb gun tech?
    Smith & Wesson's big error seems to be even trying smart gun tech. Cops don't trust it in life-or-death situations.
     
    danmc likes this.
  7. Commader47

    Commader47 member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2020
    Messages:
    48
    These types of decisions by "judges" are always considered absurd until they are are carried through hand picked courts to a detrimental outcome.

    How many other items should be "banned" "legislated" "controlled" etc simply because if stolen and misused could be used in a death?
     
  8. grampster
    • Contributing Member

    grampster Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    15,546
    Location:
    Wilderness of West Michigan
    It's Canada. Why would anyone be surprised by this ruling?
     
    jag1954, Demi-human, pharmer and 3 others like this.
  9. George P

    George P member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2018
    Messages:
    7,775
    WHAT smart gun technology? Let's not blame the criminal who stole the gun and committed a crime...........maybe they should allow folks to sue car makers for drunk driver accidents as there is technology to prevent someone from driving while drunk............
     
    Dudedog, Demi-human, GBExpat and 3 others like this.
  10. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,886
    Location:
    WNY
    Many gun companies have flirted with smart gun technology. SW, Colt and Taurus tried. Several things - there was a real concern about police and civilians being disarmed as well as kids getting guns.
    However, the electronic tech solutions never worked well such that police would use them. The only one that came close was the magnetic rings for revolvers. It did work pretty well according to testers but you had to wear the ring, it was a revolver, etc.

    Gun companies also did some marketing research and found that there was an untapped market for handgun purchasers who would buy one - if it were a safe gun - assuming it worked.

    Another problem was laws like NJ that would have mandated all guns be such. Many folks have no problem with a smart gun as a product option if it was not mandated. Now, if such existed - the risk of lawsuits is a problem if you didn't have one and something bad happened.

    It might be similar to the lawsuits that occurred when non drop safe Ruger revolvers shot people. In one suit it was shown that the user knew of the problem could have corrected it but didn't. The jury found for Ruger but Ruger still paid him a bit to stop an appeal.

    Similarly, the drop and bang problems of some Sigs and CZs (as in the recent death of a range officer near Rochester NY) may lead to suits.

    Thus, what determines what makes a gun safe? It should survive a drop, it would seem. Should it be disabled if picked up by a nonauthorized user? Not being a lawyer, I supposed there is the technical liability issue and perhaps an antigun agenda using such a suit.

    We will have to see how this plays out.

    The drunk driving question is interesting as it has been proposed and AI cars that shut you down if you drive erratically aren't far off.
     
  11. rust collector
    • Contributing Member

    rust collector Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,085
    Location:
    Pierre, SD USA
    The issue was whether the class could be certified. The court held that it could. That is a far cry from determination of liability. The court found that there was a possibility of successful litigation. There would still be many issues such as proximate cause, state of the industry at time of manufacture, foreseeability, etc. Maybe the keylock will end up saving their bacon? No one knows at this point. The worst aspect of this finding is that it ups the ante for plaintiffs' war chest. Appeal would seem likely.
     
    danmc likes this.
  12. glove

    glove Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    593
    Location:
    Richfield, Ohio
    Next will be car manufacturers. Run some over in a stolen car sue the Company that built the car.
     
  13. Robert

    Robert Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    13,188
    Location:
    Texan by birth, in Colorado cause I hate humidity
    If someone wants to post the actual court desicion we can talk about that. News stories, while useful at alerting us to a happening, are next to useless when it comes to having a conversation based on the facts of the ruling.
     
    stillquietvoice likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice